On 05/31/2012 10:13 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
This might work with smaller retail suppliers and local shops but if the board was advertised as supporting secure boot then you may find that argument leaves you without much of a case particularly if a means to disable it was provided and documented.
Which wasn't what I was referring to. I was suggesting demanding refunds when the OEM didn't provide proper documentation.
I've known vendors to blanket refuse to issue RMAs on the grounds that the customer should have known what they were purchasing (not in the secure boot case but relating to other hardware features that are problematic for some OSs).
I suspect that the law would say otherwise, especially if the fact that the board would only boot an OS from Microsoft wasn't properly documented in a way that a consumer could easily learn this before buying. Just because the vendor isn't willing to RMA doesn't always mean that the law is on their side, you know.
-- users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
